Hi. I have reviewed the document and I agree with the comments Larry and David have made and have not been swayed by the responses I've seen so far. Indeed, if one goes back through the archive to when the document was originally adopted, some of the same points being raised now were raised then.
Frankly, I don't think it covers VM mobility issues very well at all. It doesn't even mention the key issue: moving VMs around is limited in that VMs can't easily take their IP addresses with them when they move, unless they are restricted to staying within their IP subnet and VLAN. That restriction has become problematic and is the key problem overlays (and NVO3) aim to address. The document doesn't even mention this as an issue! It might also be interesting to review some history. This document was adopted by the WG at the end of 2012, some 21 months ago. Since that time, there has been essentially no discussion of the draft and there have been no substantive revisions to the document - just an update of the date and version number. Hardly an endorsement of WG interest in the document! Diff: draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-00.txt - draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-00&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03 I was opposed to adopting the document in the first place, because I did not understand the purpose of the document and what content it was intended to have w.r.t. the charter and what additional content the WG wanted it to contain and why/how the material wasn't already adequately covered in the problem statement. And here we are now... Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
